This article quantifies the seismic performance of interdependent electric power and telecommunication systems, while also identifying variables with the highest impact on design. We introduce interdependent power and telecommunication models, which probabilistically simulate the physical dependency of telecommunication systems on power via interdependent adjacency and coupling strength, while a topology observability analysis quantifies the cyber dependency of the power system on telecommunications. We also use new functionality-based performance measures, including data congestion in telecommunications and partial observability in power systems, given communication demands upsurging after earthquakes. As an application, our methodology assesses the performance of stylized power and telecommunication systems in Shelby County, TN. Results show that neglecting retrials, congestion, and power interdependency lead to significant overestimation of the performance of telecommunication systems, particularly at low-to-medium hazard levels. Sensitivity results also reveal that decreasing the strength of coupling across systems is one of the most effective ways to improve the seismic performance of evolving cyber-physical systems, particularly when increasing observability in the power system through telecommunication end offices with richer data flow pathways.
AbdallaNBoucherieRJ (2002) Blocking probabilities in mobile communications networks with time-varying rates and redialing subscribers. Annals of Operations Research112(1–4): 15–34.
2.
AdachiT (2007) Impact of cascading failures on performance assessment of civil infrastructure systems. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
3.
AhujaRKMagnantiTLOrlinJB (1989) Network flows. In: NemhauserGLRinooy KanAHGToddMJ (eds) Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 211–369.
4.
AminM (2002) Toward secure and resilient interdependent infrastructures. Journal of Infrastructure Systems8: 67–75.
5.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1991) Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the Conterminous United States. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
6.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2016) Critical assessment of lifeline system performance: Understanding societal needs in disaster recovery. Report no. NIST GCR 16-917-39, April 2016. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
7.
AT&T Bell Laboratories (1983) Engineering and Operations in the Bell System. Murray Hill, NJ: AT&T Bell Laboratories.
8.
BaklanPYamoriKTanakaY (2014) Measure of user behaviour before and during disaster congestion. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on advanced communication technology, Pyeongchang, South Korea, 16–19 February, pp. 135–140. New York City, New York: Global IT Research Institute (GIRI).
9.
BellamyJ (2005) Digital Telephony. Coppell, TX: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10.
BillintonRLiW (1994) Reliability Assessment of Electric Power Systems Using Monte Carlo Methods. Boston, MA: Springer.
11.
BobbioACiancamerlaEDi BlasiSIacominiAMariFMelattiIMinichinoMScarlattiATronciETerruggiaRZendriE (2009) Risk analysis via heterogeneous models of SCADA interconnecting Power Grids and Telco networks. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on risks and security of internet and systems (CRiSIS’2009), Toulouse, 19–22 October, pp. 90–97. New York: IEEE.
12.
BoltBA (1993) Abridged modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. In: BoltBA (ed.) Earthquakes: Newly Revised and Expanded (Appendix C), 283–286. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
13.
BooreDMAtkinsonGM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 99–138.
14.
BorgonovoE (2007) A new uncertainty importance measure. Reliability Engineering & System Safety92(6): 771–784.
CarrascoJMFOrtegaEMMCordeiroGM (2008) A generalized modified Weibull distribution for lifetime modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis53(2): 450–462.
17.
CarrerasBALynchVEDobsonINewmanDE (2002) Critical points and transitions in an electric power transmission model for cascading failure blackouts. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science12(4): 985–994.
18.
CavalieriFFranchinPBuriticá CortésJAMTesfamariamS (2014) Models for seismic vulnerability analysis of power networks: Comparative assessment. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering29(8): 590–607.
19.
Dueñas-OsorioL (2005) Interdependent response of networked systems to natural hazards and intentional disruptions. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
20.
Dueñas-OsorioLKwasinskiA (2012) Quantification of lifeline system interdependencies after the 27 February 2010 Mw 8.8 offshore Maule, Chile, earthquake. Earthquake Spectra28(suppl. 1): 581–603.
21.
Dueñas-OsorioLCraigJIGoodnoBJBostromA (2007) Interdependent response of networked systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems13(3): 185–194.
22.
EidingerJTangAO’RourkeTD (2010) Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE) Report of the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Canterbury (Darfield), New Zealand Earthquake. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
23.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) (2012) Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model (Hazus®-MH 2.1: Technical manual). Washington, DC: FEMA.
24.
FieldEHJordanTHCornellCA (2003) OpenSHA: A developing community-modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis. Seismological Research Letters74(4): 406–419.
25.
GardoniPDer KiureghianAMosalamKM (2002) Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics: ASCE128: 1024–1038.
26.
GiovinazziSAustinARuiterRFosterCNayyerlooMNairNKWotherspoonL (2017) Resilience and fragility of the telecommunication network to seismic events: Evidence after the Kaikoura (New Zealand) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering50(2): 318–328.
27.
GuidottiRChmielewskiHUnnikrishnanVGardoniPMcAllisterTvan de LindtJ (2016) Modeling the resilience of critical infrastructure: The role of network dependencies. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure1(3–4): 153–168.
28.
HinesPCotilla-SanchezEBlumsackS (2010) Do topological models provide good information about electricity infrastructure vulnerability?Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science20(3): 033122.
29.
HouckDJKimEO’ReillyGPPicklesimerDDUzunaliogluH (2004) A network survivability model for critical national infrastructures. Bell Labs Technical Journal8: 153–172.
30.
JradAO’ReillyGRichmanSHConradSKelicA (2006) Dynamic changes in subscriber behavior and their impact on the telecom network in cases of emergency. In: Proceedings of the military communications conference (MILCOM’2006), Washington, DC, 23–25 October, pp. 1–7. New York: IEEE.
31.
JradAUzunaliogluHHouckDJO’ReillyGConradSBeyelerW (2005) Wireless and wireline network interactions in disaster scenarios. In: Proceedings of the military communications conference (MILCOM’2005), Atlantic City, NJ, 17–20 October, pp. 357–363. New York: IEEE.
KhaitanSKMcCalleyJD (2015) Design techniques and applications of cyberphysical systems: A survey. IEEE Systems Journal9: 350–365.
34.
KrumpholzGRClementsKADavisPW (1980) Power system observability: A practical algorithm using network topology. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems99: 1534–1542.
35.
LeeEA (2008) Cyber physical systems: Design challenges. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international symposium on object and component-oriented real-time distributed computing (ISORC 2008), Orlando, FL, 5–7 May, pp. 363–369. New York: IEEE.
36.
LeelardcharoenK (2011) Interdependent response of telecommunication and electric power systems to seismic hazard. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
37.
LeelardcharoenKCraigJIGoodnoBJ (2011) Seismic fragility analysis of telecommunication systems. In: FaberMKoehlerJNishijimaK (eds) Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, vol. 425, 425–429. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
38.
LinY-BLinR-SChenY-KTwuC-YYangS-R (2018) Deploying the first PSTN-based IoT mechanism. IEEE Wireless Communications25(6): 4–7.
39.
LiuKS (1980) Direct distance dialing: Call completion and customer retrial behavior. Bell System Technical Journal59(3): 295–311.
40.
Marigold Technologies (2007) Central office lookup tools. Available at: http://www.marigoldtech.com/ (accessed 13 October 2007).
41.
MatheronG (1963) Principles of geostatistics. Economic Geology58(8): 1246–1266.
42.
MelchersRE (1999) Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, vol. 4. London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
43.
MeliopoulosAPS (2005) Power System Modeling, Analysis and Control. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
44.
Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAEC) (2006) Research projects and goals. Available at: http://mae.cee.illinois.edu (accessed 18 March 2011).
45.
MilanoF (2010) Optimal power flow analysis. In: MilanoF (ed.) Power System Modelling and Scripting (Power systems series). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 131–153.
46.
MillerMBakerJ (2015) Ground-motion intensity and damage map selection for probabilistic infrastructure network risk assessment using optimization. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44(7): 1139–1156.
47.
MinXDueñas-OsorioL (2010) Design of interdependent interfaces for lifeline systems using response surface inverse reliability methods. In: Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, 25–29 July, vol. 3, pp. 1973–1982. New York, USA: Curran Associates, Inc.
48.
MonticelliAWuFF (1985) Network observability: Identification of observable islands and measurement placement. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems104: 1035–1041.
49.
NasrazadaniHMahsuliMTalebiyanHKashaniH (2017) Probabilistic modeling framework for prediction of seismic retrofit cost of buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management: ASCE143(8): 04017055.
50.
O’ReillyGUzunaliogluHConradSBeyelerW (2005) Inter-infrastructure simulations across telecom, power, and emergency services. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Design of Reliable Communication Networks, 2005 (DRCN 2005). (pp. 7 -pp).
51.
O’ReillyGPHouckDJKimEMorawskiTBPicklesimerDDUzunaliogluH (2004) Infrastructure simulations of disaster scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 11th international telecommunications network strategy and planning symposium (NETWORKS 2004), Vienna, 13–16 June, pp. 205–210. New York: IEEE.
52.
OuyangMDueñas-OsorioL (2011) Efficient approach to compute generalized interdependent effects between infrastructure systems. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering25(5): 394–406.
53.
RajkumarRLeeIShaLStankovicJ (2010) Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution. In: Proceedings of the design automation conference, Anaheim, CA, 13–18 June, vol. 53, pp. 821–834. New York: IEEE.
54.
ReillyACSamuelAGuikemaSD (2015) “Gaming the system”: Decision making by interdependent critical infrastructure. Decision Analysis12(4): 155–172.
55.
RinaldiSMPeerenboomJPKellyTK (2001) Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine21(6): 11–25.
56.
RosatoVIssacharoffLTiriticcoFMeloniSDe PorcellinisSSetolaR (2008) Modelling interdependent infrastructures using interacting dynamical models. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures4(1–2): 63–79.
57.
SarkaleYNozhatiSChongEKPEllingwoodBR (2019) Decision automation for electric power network recovery. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.00699 (accessed 1 October 2020).
58.
SchiffAJ (ed.) (1998) Guide to Post-Earthquake Investigation of Lifelines. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
59.
SchneiderKLiuCCPaulJP (2006) Assessment of interactions between power and telecommunications infrastructures. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems21(3): 1123–1130.
60.
ShinozukaMRoseAEguchiRT (eds) (1998) Engineering and Socioeconomic Impacts of Earthquakes: An Analysis of Electricity Lifeline Disruptions in the New Madrid Area. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), University at Buffalo, 216 pp.
61.
SilverL (2019) Smartphone Ownership Is Growing Rapidly Around the World, but Not Always Equally. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org (accessed 7 July 2020).
62.
SnowAPWeckmanGRChayanamK (2006) Modeling telecommunication outages due to power loss. International Journal of Industrial Engineering13(1): 51–60.
63.
TalebiyanHDuenas-OsorioL (2020) Decentralized Decision Making for the Restoration of Interdependent Networks. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering6(2): 04020012. DOI: 10.1061/AJRUA6.0001035
64.
TalebiyanHDuenas-OsorioL (2019) Probabilistic Assessment of Decentralized Decision-making for Interdependent Network Restoration. In:SongJ (Ed) 13th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP13. Seoul, South Korea. DOI: 10.22725/ICASP13.215
65.
TangA (1998) Factors affecting congestion (change of traffic pattern) of telecommunication systems and networks. In: Proceedings of the workshop on performance criteria for telecommunication services under earthquake conditions, New York, 15 July. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Telecommunication Systems Division (2011) Survey on Communication Conditions Just after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Tokyo, Japan. Available at: http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/ (accessed 2 October 2020).
United States Census Bureau (2010) 2010 United States Census. Available at: https://www.census.gov (accessed 2 August 2018).
70.
VanziI (2000) Structural upgrading strategy for electric power networks under seismic action. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics29(7): 1053–1073.
71.
VenkatasubramanianV (1994) Tools for dynamic analysis of the general large power system using time-varying phasors. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems16(6): 365–376.
72.
WeiPLuZZYuanX (2013) Monte Carlo simulation for moment-independent sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety110: 60–67.
73.
WernerSDOstromDKTaylorCE (2002) Planning Unified Lifeline Risk/Reliability Platform for Seismic Risk Decision Making, vol. 48. Richmond, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).
74.
WuJ (2017) End-to-end seismic risk analysis framework for the identification of infrastructure network retrofits. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
75.
WuJBakerJW (2020) Statistical learning techniques for the estimation of lifeline network performance and retrofit selection. Reliability Engineering & System Safety200: 106921.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
